Comparison of two methods for evaluation of image quality of lumbar spine radiographs

Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE

Volumn 5, Issue 26, 2004, Pages 251-262

  Tingberg, Anders ^a   Båth, Magnus ^b   Håkansson, Markus ^b   Medin, Joakim ^a   Sandborg, Michael ^c   Alm Carlsson, Gudrun ^c   Mattsson, Sören ^a   Månsson, Lars Gunnar ^b  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^b SAHLGRENSKA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^c LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Added pathology; Diagnostic radiology; European Image Criteria; Evaluation methods for clinical image quality; Free response forced error (FFE) experiment; Lumbar spine hybrid images; Lumbar spine radiography; Visual grading analysis (VGA)

Indexed keywords

IMAGE QUALITY; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MEDICAL IMAGING; PATHOLOGY; QUANTUM THEORY; SPURIOUS SIGNAL NOISE; X RAYS;

ADDED PATHOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC RADIOLOGY; EUROPEAN IMAGE CRITERIA; EVALUATION METHODS FOR CLINICAL IMAGE QUALITY; FREE RESPONSE FORCED ERROR (FFE) EXPERIMENT; LUMBAR SPINE HYBRID IMAGES; LUMBAR SPINE RADIOGRAPHY; VISUAL GRADING ANALYSIS (VGA);

RADIOGRAPHY;

EID: 12144262780     PISSN: 16057422     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1117/12.534040     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (21)

1. ICRP. Radiological protection and safety in medicine. ICRP Publication 73. Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1996.
2. European Union, European Medical Exposure Directive 97/43 (Euroatom), Official Journal of the European Communities 180, pp. 22-27, 1997.
3. Hart D., Jones D.G., Wall B.F. Estimation of effective dose in diagnostic radiology from entrance surface sode and dose-area product measurements. NRPB-R262. Chilton: National Radiological Protection Board; 1994.
4. C.E. Metz, ROC methodology in radiologic imaging, Invest. Radial. 21(9), pp. 720-733, 1986.
5. C.E. Metz. Fundamental ROC analysis. In Handbook of Medical Imaging. Beutel J, Kundel HL, Van Metter RL. Bellingham, USA: SPIE Press 2000, pp. 751-769.
6. D.P. Chakraborty. The FROC, AFROC and DROC variants of the ROC analysis. In Handbook of Medical Imaging. Beutel J, Kundel HL, Van Metter RL. Bellingham, USA: SPIE Press 2000, pp. 771-796.
7. A. Almén, A. Tingberg, S. Mattsson, J. Besjakov, S. Kheddache, B. Lanhede et al., The influence of different technique factors on image quality of lumbar spine radiographs as evaluated by established CEC image criteria, Br. J. Radial 73(875), pp. 1192-1199, 2000.
8. B. Lanhede, M. Bäth, S. Kheddache, P. Sund, L. Björneid, M. Widell et al., The influence of different technique factors on image quality of chest radiographs as evaluated by modified CEC image quality criteria, Br. J. Radiol. 75(889), pp. 38-49, 2002.
9. A. Tingberg. Quantifying the quality of medical x-ray images. An evaluation based on normal anatomy for lumbar spine and chest radiography. Thesis. Malmö: Lund University; 2000.
10. A. Tingberg, C. Herrmann, B. Lanhede, A. Almén, M. Sandborg, G. McVey et al., The influence of the characteristic curve on the image quality of clinical radiographs, Accepted for publication in Brit J Radiol. 2003.
11. L. G. M̊nsson, Evaluation of radiographic procedures. Investigations related to chest imaging. Thesis. Göteborg: Göteborg University; 1994.
12. D.P. Chakraborty and L.H. Winter, Free-response methodology: alternate analysis and a new observer-performance experiment, Radiology 174(3), pp. 873-881, 1990.
13. P. Sund, C. Herrmann, A. Tingberg, S. Kheddache, L.G. M̊nsson, A. Almén et al., Comparison of two methods for evaluating image quality of chest radiographs, Proc. SPIE, Medical Imaging: Image Perception 3981, pp. 251-257, 2000.
14. A. Tingberg, C. Herrmann, J. Besjakov, K. Rodenacker, A. Almén, P. Sund et al., Evaluation of lumbar spine images with added pathology, Proc. SPIE, Medical Imaging: Image Perception 3981, pp. 34-42, 2000.
15. C. Herrmann, A. Tingberg, J. Besjakov and K. Rodenacker, Simulation of nodule-like pathology in radiographs of the lumbar spine, Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry 90(1-2), pp. 113-116, 2000.
16. A. Tingberg, C. Herrmann, A. Almén, J. Besjakov, S. Mattsson, P. Sund et al., Comparison of two methods for evaluation of the image quality of lumbar spine radiographs, Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry 90(1-2), pp. 165-168, 2000.
17. European Commission. European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images. Brussels: EUR 16260; 1996.
18. H. Manninen, E.O. Terho, M. Wiljasalo, S. Wiljasalo and S. Soimakallio, An evaluation of different imaging chains in clinical chest radiography, Br. J. Radiol. 57(683), pp. 991-995, 1984.
19. E. Samei, W. Eyler and L. Baron. Effects of anatomical structure on signal detection. In Handbook of Medical Imaging. Beutel J, Kundel HL, Van Metter RL. Bellingham, USA: SPIE Press 2000, pp. 655-682
20. A. Tingberg, C. Herrmann, J. Besjakov, A. Almén, P. Sund, D. Adliene et al., What is worse: Decreased spatial resolution or increased noise?, Proc SPIE, Medical Imaging: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment 4686, pp. 338-346, 2002.
21. A. Tingberg and D. Sjöström, Search for optimal tube voltage for image plate radiography, Proc SPIE, Medical Imaging: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment 5034. pp. 187-196, 2003.